The closer we come to election day, the more pontificating by Christians and nonChristians alike we see about the proper role of the Christian in the realm of politics.
Before I get into it, let me make it clear that I will be talking primarily about politics in the U.S.A.; laws and practicalities of practice in most other countries are very different from those we live with here.
It is, to me, quite frustrating. First, because nonchristians have little legitimate right to instruct Christians on how to interact in the political realm other than to point out that it is illegal to enact specific religious practices into law. Anything else the nonChristian says on the subject is mostly irrelevant to Christians. The authority for practice and mode of participation in the public square, including politics, does not lie with them.
On the other hand, there is a large diversity of views among Christians about the believer’s role in politics. On the one extreme, there are those who in practice act as if politics is the primary concern in this world, and take a “the ends justify the means” approach. These are those who demonize whoever appears to be on the “evil” side of political fence, almost all of their conversation revolves around politics, etc. For the most part, these are those who claim Christ, but act as if the political party or political system is where national and sometimes personal (!) salvation lies. They have, in short, made politics as much of an idol as many unbelievers have made it their god.
On the other extreme are those that say we are required to completely abstain from politics in any form, even to the point of declaring that even the act of voting is a sin. Their position is God is sovereign, and since he is in complete control of such things it is our duty to stay out of such matters and deal with whatever happens.
I find both extremes contrary to both the teachings of Scripture and the practices of the pre-medieval churches. Throughout Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, we see that even under the rule of foreign powers God expects His people to be law-abiding citizens AS LONG AS THOSE LAWS AND PRACTICES DO NOT CONTRADICT GOD’S REVEALED LAWS AND PRACTICES. The stories of Joseph and the prophet Daniel are examples.
Additionally, when living in their own, independent country, those involved in political leadership are expected to obey God, adhere to His principles, and put the needs of the people primary in their rule. When they don’t, it is the duty of the people to call them out. That is why we see prophets arise throughout the old testament. Notice that the prophets did not ignore the civi authorities; they confronted them with their sin – but left it to God to “sort them out”.
In the New Testament, we see similar practice among Christ and His followers. Christ paid taxes, and instructed His followers to do the same (Matt. 22:19-21). Paul and Peter spoke to the fine line we as Christians walk in a world where laws are frequently unjust and encourage ungodliness : be subject to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1) BUT, when at odds, obey God rather than man’s laws (Acts 5:29)
In the realm of politics – and presently, it seems that EVERYTHING has become political – we are to conduct ourselves in such a way to be loving to both God and man. Unfortunately, at least in their demeanor on social media, many who claim to be Christian forget that this includes their political opponents.
Since God is interested primarily with how we relate to Him and other humans and only secondarily following outward rules, it isn’t surprising that the Bible gives us general principles rather than a litany of hard rules. Even more frustrating for those of us who want clear answers is the fact that the Bible says NOTHING about the citizen’s role in a Democratic Republican form of government as created in the United States. This isn’t surprising, since the Biblical writers knew nothing of a form of government in which all adult citizens are not only allowed to, but encouraged to participate in the governance of the nation.
So, where does that leave Christians in navigating the political landscape?
First of all, because it is a civic duty as well as privilege to vote, Christians should thoughtfully and prayerfully strive to vote and to do so in such a way as to make an outcome that will uphold Godly principles and give the best freedom to live and proclaim the Gospel.
Second, Christians should do at least basic research into the issues and candidates to be voted on. This means that you have to examine views and arguments for and against those views from as many “sides” as possible. I have found more than a few occasions when a candidate from a political party whose platform I adamantly disagree with is actually more aligned with God’s principles and my beliefs about how best to serve the citizens of our country than the candidate from my preferred party.
Some of the questions I think should always be asked are:
—} Does this legislation treat all citizens fairly, equally, and does it uphold the provisions and freedoms recognized in the Constitution, or does the candidate uphold the rule of law?
Our God is a God of order for a reason; whenever rewards and punishments are meted out by the government or it’s courts at the whim of whoever may be in power at the time, that country’s society ALWAYS eventually descends into either chaos or tyranny.
—} What is the candidate’s record of actual support or opposition on important issues?
Often, candidates will say one thing, but actually vote the opposite. Many change their rhetoric to match their audience, say what they think will curry favor – often in opposition to what they have said in the past with no acknowledgement of their former position.
—} Is the candidate truthful?
I’m not thinking here about a rhetorical habit of exaggeration (as annoying as that is), or the occasional and corrected (by the candidate) mistake. I’m talking about the person who frequently lies and either refuses to acknowledge the truth, or repeats the lie even in the face of contrary historical facts. I am NOT talking about opinions that have not or cannot be proven; I’m talking about statements contrary to published and incontrovertible public fact. If you can’t believe what a candidate says now, how can you expect to believe them after they get what they want?
—} Does the candidate or legislation actually support the preservation of innocent lives?
I will say up front that after much study and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that many government programs that are presented as “for the children” or to “save lives” in actual practice do the opposite. I do NOT believe that in most cases this is by design; in fact I believe that the majority of the proponents of such programs do so with good intent. “Reproductive rights” legislation, however is NOT one of these. This nothing more than legalizing the taking of an innocent human life for the sake of convenience. VERY VERY RARELY is abortion performed as a necessary medical procedure to protect the mother.
-} Am I getting my information from multiple, reliable sources from both sides of the issue?
Sadly, we live in a time when all “sides” of the political spectrum – left, right, socialist, communist, conservative, whatever label you prefer – tend to cherry pick facts, deceptively edit content, outright lie, and ignore facts and statements that oppose their view. Even more frustrating is that there is not a single “news” outlet that isn’t aligned with and complicit with such practices to some degree. So, I think it is important to get your information from at least three sources:
- The primary source: Candidate statements and proposed legislation documents.
- Thoughtful analysis of the primary source both for and against
- News reports from organizations friendly to both sides. Generally speaking the following make a good starting point: ABC, CNN, CBS and especially MSNBC for the left. Fox News, Newsmax, One America News for the right.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is one other question. This should be directed at ourselves, both individually and and corporately:
Am I presenting the case for my position calmly, graciously, and with compassion?
I may very passionately disagree with someone on an issue, but I do well to remember that the person I am interacting with is made in the image of God, and it is my duty to treat them accordingly. Just because they are wrong ( and they may not be; listening is a virtue!) does not mean they are not human.